Atomic status

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 07/18/2014 10:07 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>  
> Thanks for the response.
>  
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>  
>> Most of the above are also in grumpy areas of infrastructure where
>> adding a person to fix it means they will need to learn a lot of other
>> things before it works well or doesn't snag up something else. It
>> would be good to add a person, but don't expect an instant win but
>> more instant pain in doing so. 
>  
> Right.
>  
>> There is also a part where infrastructure and releng are separate
>> units in some ways and not separate in others. Some of your blockers
>> are on one and some are on another and some in between. I can really
>> answer on the content mirroring side as I believe we can figure out a
>> way to do that. Other parts are on koji developers and other
>> developers who work on signing. 
>  
> Yeah.  The more I think about this, maybe Project Atomic should operate
> on its own, deriving from Fedora, but with separate infrastructure.

Yes and no. I think we should probably work as a Remix for the F21
timeframe while still trying to get as much in for the Cloud Product as
possible - and then try to be well-integrated with Fedora infra within
the F22 timeframe.

I know the infrastructure + releng folks are always overtasked, and I
don't want to overload them. At the same time, it'd be good to do this
as an official Fedora piece in the long term.

> Let's look at an example of another project:
> http://www.ovirt.org/Home
>  
> They have their own ISO page <http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.4/>
> <http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-3.4/> (and it's slick!), their own
> GPG keys, their own release schedule, their own ovirt-release RPMs,
> their own installation instructions, their own mirroring list.  And
> presumably their own system administrators.
>  
> And ultimately their own branding.  Maybe that's the right thing for
> Atomic too?
>  
> I can see a lot of advantages to that path; disadvantages as well of
> course.  Does anyone else have opinions on this?  Are we trying to do
> too much in Fedora?  Should it remain a base set of RPMs, with
> differently branded products deriving from it externally?

Can we take a middle path and simply treat the F21 cycle as a ramp-up?

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 538 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20140718/0bebc399/attachment.sig>